"[How] to check these unconstitutional
invasions of... rights by the Federal judiciary? Not by impeachment in
the first instance, but by a strong protestation of both houses of Congress
that such and such doctrines advanced by the Supreme Court are contrary
to the Constitution; and if afterwards they relapse into the same heresies,
impeach and set the whole adrift. For what was the government divided
into three branches, but that each should watch over the others and oppose
their usurpations?" --Thomas Jefferson to Nathaniel Macon, 1821. (*) FE
10:192

Chief Justice William Rehnquist issued
his year
end report of the Court which should demonstrate to most Americans
that allowing Supreme Court Justices to remain in office for two, three,
four decades or longer is a dangerous thing. Rehnquist's comments are
transparently self-serving, i.e., "I will also focus on the recently mounting
criticism of judges for engaging in what is often referred to as "judicial
activism."

It would appear the heat from We the
People is finally penetrating the conceit of these self-proclaimed Gods
on the throne. The people of this Republic are fed up with federal judges
and Supreme Court Justices legislating from the bench. How many different
ways can you interpret the U.S. Constitution that is only a few oversize
pages of parchment? The law libraries are full of thousands of books
of decisions from the federal judiciary that most Americans can't even
understand.

Here is a sampling of Rehnquist's whining:

"III. Criticism of Judges Based
on Judicial Acts

"Criticism of judges has dramatically
increased in recent years, exacerbating in some respects the strained
relationship between the Congress and the federal Judiciary.

"By guaranteeing judges life tenure
during good behavior, the Constitution tries to insulate judges from the
public pressures that may affect elected officials. The Constitution protects
judicial independence not to benefit judges, but to promote the rule of
law: judges are expected to administer the law fairly, without regard
to public reaction. Nevertheless, our government, in James Madison's words,
ultimately derives "all powers directly or indirectly from the great body
of the people." Thus, public reaction to judicial decisions, if it is
sustained and widespread, can be a factor in the electoral process and
lead to the appointment of judges who might decide cases differently.

"Although arguments over the federal
Judiciary have always been with us, criticism of judges, including charges
of activism, have in the eyes of some taken a new turn in recent years.....At
the same time, there have been suggestions to impeach federal judges who
issue decisions regarded by some as out of the mainstream. And there were
several bills introduced in the last Congress that would limit the jurisdiction
of the federal courts to decide constitutional challenges to certain kinds
of government action.

"A natural consequence of life tenure
should be the ability to benefit from informed criticism from legislators,
the bar, academe, and the public. When federal judges are criticized for
judicial decisions and actions taken in the discharge of their judicial
duties, however, it is well to remember two principles that have long
governed the tenure of federal judges.

"First, Congress's authority to impeach
and remove judges should not extend to decisions from the bench." Rehnquist
then goes into a long spiel on the Samuel Chase matter saying in part:

"Chase was by no means a model judge,
and his acquittal certainly was not an endorsement of his actions. Rather,
the Senate's failure to convict him represented a judgment that impeachment
should not be used to remove a judge for conduct in the exercise of his
judicial duties. The political precedent set by Chase's acquittal has
governed the use of impeachment to remove federal judges from that day
to this: a judge's judicial acts may not serve as a basis for impeachment.
Any other rule would destroy judicial independence -- instead of trying
to apply the law fairly, regardless of public opinion, judges would be
concerned about inflaming any group that might be able to muster the votes
in Congress to impeach and convict them."

What Rehnquist is saying is that members
of the U.S. Supreme Court can hallucinate any decision they want without
fear of removal from the bench. Who made these people God? I can give
you three perfect examples of how the U.S. Supreme Court bastardized the
U.S. Constitution, although pro-baby killer, pro-sodomy, anti-Christian
advocates will disagree:

First, the Everson v. Board of Education
decision [330 U.S. 1, 18 (1947)] which started this mythical 'separation
of church and state' movement. Justice Black delivered the opinion of
the court which had some rather convoluted language justifying their position:

"The New Jersey statute is challenged
as a "law respecting an establishment of religion." The First Amendment,
as made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth, commands that a state
"shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof . . . ."

The Fourteenth Amendment states in
part: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;" The Fourteenth
Amendment created a second class of "citizen," an important distinction
few people understand. The 1947 Supreme Court took the position that the
freedom to worship is a privilege, not a God-given right.

Second, Roe v Wade (1973): The
nine member all male court used the 14th Amendment to condone the murder
of unborn babies. The majority opinion fell to Blackmun who crafted an
opinion which glaringly and miserably failed to identify any specific
U.S. constitutional guarantee to justify the court's ruling. Like a magician,
he hallucinated up a decision on the right to privacy citing protection
of due process under the 14th Amendment. Translated: the court conjured
up a right that was not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

Third, Lawrence v Texas (2003).
In this case, the question to the court was due process and equal protection
under the 14th Amendment regarding a Texas statute that made it a crime
for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate conduct
(sodomy). Once again, the Supreme Court not only came up with one of the
most convoluted, toxic decisions of the past century, it went much deeper
than that. This was an all out attack on states' rights.

As a side note that so few Americans
seem to care anything about - amendments to the U.S. Constitution that
were clearly not ratified, i.e., the Sixteenth and Seventeenth; I also
strongly believe there clearly exists sufficient proof that the Fourteenth
Amendment was never ratified. On December 10, 1995, a document authored
by retired Judge Lander H. Perez of Louisiana was submitted to the U.S.
Congress. This document purported that the 14th Amendment to the United
States Constitution "is and should be held to be ineffective, invalid,
null, void, and unconstitutional" for a long list of valid reasons. Perez'
presentation is quite compelling.

It goes without saying that judges
and Supreme Court Justices should not be influenced by every special interest
group in the country. But, when they ignore the Constitution and issue
decisions that clearly comes into conflict with that document, leaving
them on the bench is equivalent to letting an employee who steals remain
on the job. Why should federal or Supreme Court judges receive blanket
immunity for lifetime appointments no matter how destructive their decisions?

In Dr. Edwin Vieira's brilliant work,
How
to Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary, this notion of lifetime appointments
and renegade decisions is a fabrication supported only by the parasites
who benefit:

"Article III does explicitly provide
that "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold
their Offices during good Behaviour." In other words, judges can be expelled
from office by means other than impeachment. Section Two of Article III
states:

"The judicial Power shall extend to
all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws
of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under
their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers
and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to
Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies
between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between
Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming
Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens
thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors,
other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be
Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the
other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate
Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under
such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

Judges are not above the Constitution

"The question whether the judges are
invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of
a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise
of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution
which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative
branches." --Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815. ME 14:303

Referring back to How to Dethrone
the Imperial Judiciary, "It is pure myth that the Supreme Court has
the last word on the meaning of the U.S. Constitution. Indeed, Article
VI makes clear that "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States
which shall be made in Pursuance thereof...shall be the supreme law of
the Land...and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United
States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation,
to support this Constitution." In other words, the Judiciary is under
the Constitution and not over it."

These contumacious, arrogant federal
judges have been jailing Americans over the income tax issue, treaty based
environmental issues which have destroyed the livelihood of thousands
of Americans, giving illegal aliens invading our nation "constitutional
rights," and shredding the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.

The Supreme Court Justices for decades
have refused to hear critical cases, i.e. the fraudulent ratification
of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments and instead, have allowed
the Department of Justice and the IRS destroy the lives of innocent Americans.
And now the Chief Justice who has been sitting on the bench for 32 years,
11 months and 28 days is whining because the people are demanding their
removal? Rehnquist shouldn't worry - no Congress over the past 100 years
has had the stones to remove but a couple federal judges and since the
American people just voted back in the same gutless wonders to serve in
Congress, it's likely judicial terror will continue to reign over We the
People.

These contumacious, arrogant federal
judges have been jailing Americans over the income tax issue, treaty based
environmental issues which have destroyed the livelihood of thousands
of Americans, giving illegal aliens invading our nation "constitutional
rights,"